European Legislation and the Implementation of Take Back Schemes

by Achim Winter

Reverse Logistics Magazine, Edition 15

European countries are producing around 1.4 billion tons of waste, 40 million tons thereof hazardous material, and the major part of the waste can be found in landfill sites or will be incinerated.

On one side is an increasing ecological awareness and discussions on the threatening climate change. On the other is the eastern European expansion of the EU and consequently further increase of waste streams that has made it necessary to issue directives or ordinances that have to be transposed into national law by each country.

Based on the producer responsibility, the directives impose the disposal of waste on the manufacturer of the products, who also has to bear the major part of costs for an environmentally sound treatment.

It is the goal to avoid waste by creating environmentally friendly products, to reduce waste by separating and recovering/reusing and finally to take care of recycling and disposal in an environmentally friendly manner. The producer has to establish an infrastructure for collecting their waste. As the requirements for installing these necessary reverse logistics systems are not real core competences of the producer, they need service provider or 3rd parties for implementation. Some examples for the European Directives are the End of life vehicles (ELV) Directive 2000/53/EC, WEEE Directive 2002/96/EC or the Battery Directive 2006/66/EC. These directives are not binding law for the member states but a guideline with which they have to comply. The member states have some freedom in implementing and transposing the European frame legislation into a national one. Creating the legal basis in conformity with the EU legislation on the one hand and building up efficient take back systems on the other, is a big challenge for the EU and in each country for all parties involved.

The ELV Directive

In Europe, every year around 9 million tons of waste is produced by ELVs. But in used cars, there are many parts that can be recycled, including the oil, filter, plastic parts and batteries–75% of ELVs, are recyclable. In the EU, the rest is considered waste. As car ownership continues to increase, it is important that the proportion of each end-of-life vehicle being recycled is maximised, so that the environmental impact is reduced. The ELV Directive (Directive 2000/53/EC), came into force in October 2000 and aims to achieve an environmentally friendly dismantling reuse and recycling of used or crashed vehicles (or parts, for example partially worn tyres). The ultimate goal is to put only 5% of ELV residues into landfills. In October 2007, the European Commission published a report regarding the difficulties and the different transpositions of this binding directive in various European countries. So the measures to avoid waste, to reduce the use of hazardous substances (one litre of waste oil is enough to contaminate one million litres of water) or to use recycled material in cars are varying. Some countries like Germany and France, having a strong industry on this sector, oblige the producers, by tight regulations, to change the construction of cars accordingly. Other countries stress their transposition of the directive on construction of spare parts or on restrictions for hazardous material. Nearly all countries issued measures to guarantee the building up of take back systems (usually not a core competence of the producer), collection points and recycling plants. In practice, Malta for example, has no recycling plant, in Italy there are around 1.500. All countries confirmed having set up goals for reuse and recycling quotas, in most cases the same quota as recommended in the directive (85% and 95% from 2015 onwards). Another obstacle is the costs, which vary significantly in the different member states. Overall the implementation is not yet satisfactory, as demonstrated by a number of infringement procedures by the European Commission. In some member states the installed ELV management systems are not fully operational.

The WEEE Directive

A similar development took the implementation of the WEEE Directive, in force since 2003. This waste stream is growing at 3-5% per year and a significant amount of it was still land filled or incinerated. The Directive imposes the physical and financial responsibility for the setting up of efficient collection schemes and the disposal of waste electrical and electronic equipment on the manufacturers of such equipment. Those companies should establish an infrastructure for collecting WEEE, in such a way that “Users of electrical and electronic equipment from private households should have the possibility of returning WEEE at least free of charge.” The modalities of the logistics


and the organisation of the take-back schemes are left to the choice of member states. Also, the companies are compelled to use the collected waste in an ecologically-friendly manner, either by ecological disposal or by reuse/refurbishment of the collected WEEE. The (at that time) 25 member states had been obliged to transpose its provisions into national law by August 2004, but only Cyprus met this deadline. One year after this deadline the electronics manufacturers became financially responsible for compliance to the WEEE directive which today has been transposed in national laws in all member countries of the European Union. As the national transposition of the WEEE Directive varies between the member states (and some do not yet have take back schemes in place today), a patchwork of requirements and compliance solutions is emerging across Europe. Under the directive, by the end of 2006 – and with one or two years’ delay for the new EU members – every country has to recycle at least 4 kg of WEEE per capita per year. As this directive is more detailed and prescriptive than other directives, it is more difficult to implement. Moreover, the character of the products is very different and not that homogenous, as for example, end-of-life vehicles (ELV). Thus, 27 + 2 (Switzerland and Norway) different regulations are effective and considerable differences in collection rates achieved. For example 0-1 kg per capita in Poland and more than 10 kg in Norway and Sweden are collected. The implementation of the WEEE directive is still a challenge for all parties involved (legislative bodies, local authorities, producers and service providers) and according to producers, a harmonization of the measures at EU level is necessary in order to avoid costs and establish a fair competition.

The Battery Directive

The Battery Directive 2006/66/EC, made official since September 2006 has two main purposes, firstly to reduce the hazardous material used in batteries (lead, lead-acid, cadmium, mercury) by establishing prescriptive limits for the producer and secondly, to achieve a maximum of collecting and recycling quota for all kind of used batteries (portable, industrial and automotive batteries). All member states have to take necessary measures in order to install efficient take back schemes to ensure that battery recycling follows the best available, environmentally friendly techniques in order to minimize the negative impact on the environment. The current status in Europe shows still significant differences in the organization of take back schemes (monopolistic systems, multiple producer systems, independent collections, municipal collection), but from 26th of September 2008 onwards the directive is tightening. Thus, all member states should have transposed the requirements of the directive into national law. Until September 2012, the collection target of 25% or more (for portable batteries) has to be achieved, to be increased to 45% in 2016. Some countries have achieved these collection rates already by today, but others having underdeveloped collection schemes, need more time.

Packaging Waste

Due to the increasing set of problems in connection with waste arising from packaging, the EU started to introduce first measures on the management of packaging waste in the early 1980s. This turned out to be too vague to be effective and only a few member states introduced measures on packaging waste in order to reduce their impacts on the environment. So, after long discussions, a comprehensive legislation on packing came into force in 1994. The Directive 94/62/EC “aims to harmonise national measures in order to prevent or reduce the impact of packaging and packaging waste on the environment and to ensure the functioning of the Internal Market (market within the European Union). It contains provisions on the prevention of packaging waste, on the re-use of packaging and on the recovery and recycling of packaging waste”. All member states have to establish systems for the return and/or collection of packaging waste, step by step and with increasing quotas.

Until December 31, 2008 the following targets for materials contained in packaging waste have to be achieved: 60% by weight for glass, paper and board; 50% by weight for metals; 22.5% by weight for plastics and 15% by weight for wood. All this based on the amount brought to market. For some countries the deadline is extended either due to geographical circumstances or due to being a "young" member state. Already in 2006 and covering the period between 1997 and 2002, the European Commission noted "considerable improvements in terms of recycling, recovery and incineration of packaging and packaging waste," and "recovery and recycling have had positive environmental effects, including a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and resource savings if compared with the mere disposal of packaging in landfills to be incinerated without energy recovery."

For the consumer the return processes related to the fulfilment of the directives mentioned before are for the most part running in the background. He actively enters the chain in separating waste in his household from packaging of food to sending back empty printer cartridges or end-of-life electronics.

In some countries the awareness for being part of these processes to protect the environment is very distinctive (Northern Europe incl. Germany), other countries have to intensify their efforts in this field (Portugal, Greece). In the meantime a lot of national take back schemes are implemented, sometimes well protected (monopolized) but in many cases a good balanced competition was developed in the last years. Probably the most advanced of the international acting suppliers is RLG (Reverse Logistics Group), offering one stop shopping throughout Europe and offering take back schemes e.g. for warranty parts, web shops (virtual stores), repairs, try and buy, trade in and waste, both B2C and B2B.

Achim Winter is CEO of CCR Logistics Systems AG and responsible for the unit’s strategy and sales. Together with his brother he founded the company in 1991, both together are holding one third of the share capital of CCR. Since the merge of CCR, Cycleon and Vfw under the family brand of Reverse Logistics GmbH (RLG) in 2007, Mr. Winter is also managing director at the RLG. This includes his position as CEO at Vfw and Cycleon. RLG is the leading pan-European provider of Reverse Logistics solutions such as Warranty Parts Management, Trade in and Clearing as well as Waste Management. RLG is as well offering pan-European fulfillment of WEEE, ELV, battery, packaging, waste oil legislation.